Fact A: Climate change is predominantly caused by fossil fuel usage (focusing only on what we humans control).
Fact B: Many people do not believe that climate change is an important issue.
Fact C: Fossil fuels are a limited resource. We will eventually run out.
In the United States, I see many politicians point out fact A but struggle to get any overwhelming support for such ideas from the American public, which has instead elected as its president a person who is described in fact B.
Why don't these politicians instead employ fact C which, unlike fact A, is obvious and uncontested across the political spectrum? After all, if people are told that fossil fuels are a limited ressource, the obvious response is that we must manage that ressource for the important aspects of our society. Then by managing that ressource, we accomplish the same thing that climate change prevention policies due: a limitation of our fossil fuel usage.
The only difference is that now we've accomplished it without making it about the climate. Rather, we're just doing something logical and rational: we have this thing that we all really like, and we're soon going to run out, so let's not use so much of it and also try to focus on what we might be able to substitute it with (aka renewable energy).
I think anybody, no matter their views on the climate, would think that's a reasonable way to go about it. So why don't US politicians talk about this aspect more?